Skip to main content
5:00 pm
was removed aored as a location because it's too dense our menu is almost exactly the same as subito's and all of my competitors, because we compete with each other. their discretion could not be exercised without a complete set of facts by dpw at the time of decision. 4, there is no bathroom for use. you can't handle money and food. that is part of the health code. it's a health hazard not to have a hand washing simpbetween cashiering and foodservice. the map show twos coffee vendors. subito admitted major disclosures and misled the city. the mobile food facility says
5:01 pm
the permit is valid om if the applicant has not misrepresented facts. >> jim patrick -- three things the bathroom, parking and side door on the truck. the bathroom has not been approved by the owner of the building as specifically sets out in the regulations in the law. the bathroom is not 200' from where the truck is. in fact, it's about a block and a half. you have to go half a block across the street and north half a block and up the stairs and back in the mezzanine and i viewed it today and i can tell you it's quite a ways. and there is no handicap path of travel to the bathroom, which is required. no way can the customers use it or the employees use it. no. 2 is parking. it's taking the last two spaces in this whole large two and a half block area of downtown. no parking. we need parking for customers.
5:02 pm
we don't need parking for coffee. no. 3 the side door, when you open the side door it will take 60% of the sidewalk. it's right in front of a restaurant. when the restaurant puts out their tables it takes up 40% of the table, 60 and 40 last time i checked was 100. where are the pedestrians in it's a problem. we have an illegal bathroom and we're losing the parking and side door operations make it impossible. this deal just doesn't pass muster and when it doesn't pass muster, you can't sell mustard. thank you. >> fill out a card, sir. >> hello, among the other reasons that restaurants is family-owned restaurant -- the problem that we have, i have a couple of points here. we sell coffee in the morning. two, there is always construction getting done there. and as you can see, there is only --
5:03 pm
>> reference the overhead, if you want us to see something? >> so as you can see, this is our restaurant there. and there is only one lane there. that would be our problem. i mean, i don't see how that could be fixed. also we are already receiving enough competition, like allison said. we all sell the same thing. thank you. >> hi, my name is deb serials with serials markets. they claim that i wasn't within 300' and that the access to my location was on market street. in fact, we have never had access on market street. the access to our place is on 2nd and stevenson, a quarter block down, which is within 300'. in my lease it allows me to have a patio. i have a 1500-square-feet patio
5:04 pm
that i spent $75,000 building. it's exclusively for me and we're within 300'. we sell organic coffee. >> what is the name of your company? >> sellers markets. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> >> okay. >> >> i'm a private individual. >> >> my name is gary goldstein i'm the permit holdner this hearing. i first applied 16 months ago and i have spent over $100,000 on this business. i relied on dpw policy, which is part of the city policy. there is a specific language in the dpw guidelines which addresses the coffee truck as not to be considered like food outside of a diner.
5:05 pm
this hearing was triggered by radio omission which was no fault of mine. all partis were properly notified. i was parented by dpw in september and i have no revenue while having to maintain significant costs of over $1,000 a month and other overhead. the truck is my chance to make a living for my family and it's my only opportunity to have a livelihood. i have acted in good faith. please help me to epihold my permits. thank you. >> good evening my name is debbie cardigan with sedric farm. i am here to ask that you uphold espresso subjectee, but
5:06 pm
correct the typos and findings pointed out by the appellantment i have a whole thing written here. i have to say there were so many things that were said that weren't right by the appellants, i don't even know where to start, but i will start with due process. there is this whole issue whether due process was served and there is a question as my client pointed out, he didn't, but it was no fault of his own. radio service may have missed two addresses. two addresses. and those addresses [pwo-pblgs/] got notice of your first board of appeals hearing. this is not different than when you had your hearing on grumpis and off the grid, when grumpies said we didn't get notice because dpw didn't renotice when they switched locations. you took jurisdiction and heard it up uphold the permit with modifications. this is the same thing, a de novo hearing.
5:07 pm
starbucks hasn't been around in 15 months. they sent one email in november of 2011, saying they were concerned about ingress and egress. at this point they are nowhere to be found. i spoke with the regional vice president of starbuckss, a guy name david chu who said we don't want to be involved of we want to be neutral. we don't want to do anything more. we're neutral. we're staying out of it. doesn't sound like starbucks is particularly worried. it was just a question of ingress and egress. at this point the closest store to our truck location is 290 feet away. you have to cross a public street to get to a starbucks. yes, it's been 300', but as mr. kwong will tell you, it's just a factor that may be considered by dpw. there are lots of other factors that could be considered, including the fact that starbucks is a gigantic name-brand that people will go to no matter what. they have wi-fi and sell a full
5:08 pm
menu. in terms of like foods as my client has mentioned he make his living only with the sale of espresso drinks and coffee. if you look at the guidelines and this is what the city policy he was relying on when he submitted his application says that a coffee cart should not be considered like a diner. all of the people who have been speaking except for starbucks, which isn't here have said that they are operate full-day menus and dpw's stance in this and consistent application of the guidelines has to been to look at totality of the menu. we're merely asking for consistent application of the guidelines. the guidelines say that they are aloud to consider like foods. they don't have to say no, but they can consider them. that is what dpw did here. okit method of measurement that dpw uses to determine like foods is clearly a walking
5:09 pm
distance. the appellants made a big deal how everywhere in the guidelines it talks about radius and radius and radius and one place it doesn't. to me, exactly the opposite. the fact that it doesn't say 300' radius there, means that you can do a 300' walking distance which is, in fact, exactly what police department did in past times. regarding the restroom issue, i think we have the owner of the facility that is going to provide the restroom here tonight to speak with you. but i think it's suffice to say that you don't need ada accessible. we have been through this with department of sanitation and the appellant want to the department of sanitation to get this revoked and it didn't work. so i don't know what their issue is. the issue with sidewalk services i would like to use the overhead for one minute to show you the two truck locations. this is the truck location on
5:10 pm
2nd street. as you can see the truck location is here. there is a clear path of travel. there are few tables out here, outside of the path of travel. similarly on front street, this is the truck location. there is a 16' wide sidewalk. and no tables and chairs along here. so those are big deals and they are arguing that there is all of this construction. well, dpw can always stop people from parking in those parking spaces. if they are concerned about blockage, they can do, that otherwise anybody can park there. so those are all issues to by cred when talking about this. the last issue notice not provided correctly. this overhead show where's the notice was provided. as you can see it's the midpoint of the block face. there are small streets. it's true, but look at the name of the block.
5:11 pm
block 370 7. block 370 7. block 3707. this is an assessor's block. this is the midpoint of the block face. so i would like to you consider all of these things and i would like you to consider that my client has tried in > faith for 15 months to comply with this process. and i hope that as you know the city may be changing policy, but for the last 15 months he has been working with existing city policy and good faith and has done nothing wrong and just wants the chance to be a good neighbor. thank you very much. >> i have a question. >> yes. so how far is the bathroom from the location of the truck? >> gary? >> 100', maybe. >> about 100' is what gary is saying. >> excuse us. >> what we can do, if you would like, we can work with
5:12 pm
the restaurant owner and see if we can get a map available to show to you during public comment period. would that be okay? >> okay. >> thank you. mr. kwong. >> good evening commissioners john kwong from the department of public works. there appears to be a continual different interpretations from the various parties related to the department's process. let's first go to the notification. the notification as stated by the various partis is correct about what is a truck. it's located -- the notification is to be 300' radius from the mid-point of the block or the length of block, whichever is greater. that is how the legislation is written up. when it's a food cart as such at a specific property address it's 300' from that throt.lot.
5:13 pm
it's relates to the evaluation of like foods, the department tries its best to make sure it's been 300'. we make that determination as it relates to like foods. now to suggest that we use a 300' radius, it would be as the bird flies, which would not be appropriate. previously under the previous legislation that has been since suspended which came from the san francisco police department, the police department requires 600' distance, which the police department actually uses a measuring wheel to wheel off for their validation. this has been the practice of the police department. and the department of public works sees no reason to establish another way of evaluating these distances. it would not be possible for staff to walk through buildings and what not. it must be a walking distance
5:14 pm
for us to accurately determine the distances. there was a question again going back to like foods. we have people suggesting that in the morning, all they serve is coffee and that is competition as it relates to like food. however, as stated previously, again, in our order, as to established guidelines, we determine like food by looking at the totality of the menu in order to be fair and consistent. otherwise, there is no way for the department to make that evaluation. we literally have to send someone out there and stand there for different timeframes, in order to make that determination. that would not be propriety. appropriate. >> there were questions related and i have to apologize. when i went back and reevaluated the finding from the director, we made a small error putting down 3 radius.
5:15 pm
it should be 300 feet. there is no way we do determine that. i don't think the department has made any incorrect decisions. we go understand this is a very challenging piece of legislation for the board. and this is quite different from the appeal for no. 12, which is almost polar opposite. again, in our evaluation we evaluate like foods and also distances, obviously. at 290 feet from a wheeling distance from a parking spot, it could be 290. it could be 310. depending on where on the
5:16 pm
parking space, it's a 20-foot stall and it depends on where you start the count from. it's right at the border and we recognize that. and we believe our decision was propriety in this case. i'm ready to answer any questions that you may have. based upon the information provided by the applicant, because we are given the mailing information from an applicant, much like planning does and we have to take that as fact based upon an affidavit from the company that created that or the applicant. >> have you verified that the information given by the applicant is true to the notification that was given? >> at the initial notification, it was correct.
5:17 pm
>> thank you. >> we'll take public comment now. can i see a show of hands of how many people will speak to this item. keep in mind any owners of the business listed as 2nd street merchants should not be participating at this time. if you could please line up on the far wall and if you have not already filled out a speaker card, you are not required to, but it helps us in the preparation of minutes. >> i will limit testimony to two minutes. >> okay. first speaker can begin. >> good evening commissioners. ken cleveland, representing the building owners and managers association. i would just like to go back to the starbucks objection. the applicant seems to feel that starbucks does not continue to object. i talked to kim winston, who is the senior manager for government affairs for starbucks, and starbucks is
5:18 pm
loath to be publicly opposed to small independents, of course. they are 17,000 nationwide/world wide operation and they are not going to come out as an 800 -pound gorilla to opposite this. they sent an email to the department of public works that states to [pwho-pl/] it may concern, starbucks is opposed tot application submitted by expresso subito. while we are not opposed to expresso subito's operations we object to the proposed locations for the trucks. they have not rescinded the objection. i think that is very relevant. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> and if you could come forward and line up by mr.
5:19 pm
pacheco, that will save second here's. >> my name is john gaser, adolph [tkpwa-ers/], inc. and i want to deal with the ingress and egress of people moving on 2nd street. 2nd street is 15' of saluki on either side. and as the parties showed there is lots of room. well, there isn't lots of room. >> can you refer to the overhead? >> you will see people standing for this food truck and they are 9' or more of the sidewalk occupied by those people. that means there is 6' left for two-way traffic to go. i recently went to the bank and the truck was there, and we were crushed trying to get into the bank. that is one area of real concern to me. the second area i have with concern on 2nd street between
5:20 pm
market and mission, there is only two metered parking places. everything else is yellow zoned and red-zone. so where is the normal people who may want to go to the other stores on the street going to park? you are issuing permits for trucks, that are occupying parking spaces for business. another thing that bothers me, the trucks are giving the food out, so no one is saying it's a restaurant. the city is not getting any sales tax. we pay sales tax to the city. you are losing. we're geting into more areas. construction. this is common view on 2nd street. 2nd street is under massive construction. and it will be. and if you keep putting the truck in there, we're going to have a nightmare on 2nd street. so i think i would like you to reconsider what you are looking at. also the health problem. we have got a flu epidemic
5:21 pm
going. you want the people who are serving you food to be properly -- [ inaudible ] >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> can we ask people not to repeat what has been stated by others. thank you. >> i am jeff knoll, i work as an inspector for the san francisco health department. i'm not here representing the city. i am here as a coffee drinker. i am in and out of restaurants regularly, and instead of standing in line at a restaurant, i would rather grab a quick cup of good coffee at expresso subito. >> my name is lynn person and i have lived and worked in san francisco for the last 29 years. i'm a business person in downtown and i guess i'm repeating a little bit of what he just said.
5:22 pm
this grab and go service, these trucks, this mobile truck industry is very valuable. it's a needed service for business people like myself. i will at times, when i have time frequent the restaurants and the coffee shops downtown. i have meetings and he use their internet and sit and have coffee there when i have time. when i don't, those trucks are a valuable service and i think that permit should be uphold. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners, my name is robert bookbinder; i had a long career at the san francisco water department, 25 years. i am recently roo tired. i spent many nights and days working on the streets of san francisco especially downtown. our work crews strive it get our job done properly, and quickly. the trucks on the streets were
5:23 pm
a great help to us over the years. they made a great product. they were convenient and efficient. we did a better job because of their presence. it's only fair and just that this permit be upheld. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is kent mullan. i have been a resident of california for almost 40 years. i believe and i am a coffee drinker and i believe, again, expresso subito provides a unique and coon convenient service and even though the other stores there are times as stated i go in when i have a meeting. i do not use them regularly because my life is too hectic and they are too busy. i want to rereiterate the
5:24 pm
entrepreneur from expresso subito has been waiting a year and a half for action and put out a lot of money. this would really be an unjust action if this were to be repealed. haze two young daughters and i family to support and now he is at that state after almost a year and a half. thank you. >> next spark. >> if it's all right i'm going read from a transsculpt of mare 28th appeal and play an audio file from the december 12th appeal. is that all right? >>
5:25 pm
>> this is from mr. james walsh. there is muffin muffin, about half a block away that serves espresso, as well as sellers market, which is across the tv i'm confused by the references that the only compete on the street is starbucks and they don't count. by the way those people who are working hard, they are local, and i think that is not to be whole-hearted by thrown off the table. this second [stra-pbz/] script is from michelle tran speaking on behalf of muffin and muffin. my parents own muffins muffin and i'm concerned. i was going to say that although they are applying for 84 2nd street they will literally be half a block from my parent's shop. we also do sell coffee,
5:26 pm
espresso and we have been doing for the last 20 years. sellers market would be one block away from the proposed site. i'm opposed to this cafe, in that this area has a lot of coffee service and will not bring about new customers for new items. thank you. may i? this is [ inaudible ] >> i have been in this
5:27 pm
business for 50 years, family business. i am here just to make a simple comment and i will be very brief. by all standards, be it the california department of health, the san francisco department of health, or all fda standards, coffee is one beverage; it is considered one product. no different than wine. it's all considered wine. so when someone says that they are not serving a like product, it is a semantical game that no attorney would fall for. there is one product and that product is coffee. >> good evening.
5:28 pm
tom is trotman speaking on behalf of one the owners who couldn't be here today, michael o'brien. so i'm going read from his letter that you have. it states -- >> excuse me, are you speaking on believe of an owner who is part of the 2nd street merchant? >> he is a merchant, yes. >> you are reading from someone who is, so why don't you save it for the rebuttal? [ inaudible ] >> okay that. is fine. thank you for the clarification. >> i will quickly read through this. i am writing to urgently object to the issuance of this permit and any other food truck permits that wish to park in the financial district. the specific truck expresso subito did not notify me or my business of their intent to park across from my restaurant. lawsuit state has it all businesses within 300' must be notified. and there are some other objections that are also raised here for the same reason.
5:29 pm
current restaurantslocated within one block pay an average of $11,000 base rent. versus approximately $500 a year for automatic food truck permit. my restaurant will suffer and food sales severely. the ordinance states that these trucks are not permanent and having a truck that sell sels monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, friday, he each day of the work qualifies as a permanent structure. it's about the money and the customers we will lose due to the low-cost of food that this applicant will charge. if one food truck is approved more will follow. the question is where is the support from the city on behalf of the existing businesses that are brick-and-mortar? trash will increase dramatically and the homeless will go through the trashcans more frequently. no ada requirements. grease disposal requirement is not mentioned. homeless population will increase

January 18, 2013 5:00pm-5:30pm PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY Starbucks 10, San Francisco 5, Us 4, Dpw 4, California 2, Mr. Kwong 2, The City 2, Mullan 1, Gary Goldstein 1, Mr. James Walsh 1, Michelle Tran 1, Stevenson 1, Jim Patrick 1, John Kwong 1, Throt 1, David Chu 1, Michael O'brien 1, Allison 1, Mr. Pacheco 1, Timeframes 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color